Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelita (turtle)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Adelita (turtle)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

De-PROD'd after I PROD'd it earlier today with the following rationale: Zero independent sourcing. No indication the turtle, or the project, are notable enough to require a standalone article, and insufficient independent sourcing to justify a merge.

One source was added after the de-PROD, a PBS interview with Wallace Nichols (the guy who initiated the project). But one source, especially an interview, is not sufficient for a GNG pass. I wasn't able to find anything else significant on a search. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep There's lots of coverage – see links above. See WP:NEXIST and WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 17:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's generally regarded as customary to actually link to specific sources, if you have any. I did a BEFORE search and found nothing that satisfied all three dimensions of independence, significance, and reliability. Unless of course you mean we should cite the children's picture book...? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Davidson drops this quote on nearly every AfD he !votes on. Coverage /=/ Significant and independent coverage. And no amount of editing can fix a lack of notability. SK2242 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the nominator's job to search and list sources per WP:BEFORE. There are multiple children's books and I gather that's because thousands of schoolchildren were involved in tracking the turtle as it crossed the Pacific.  So, yes that counts for notability.  And so does the PBS documentary, which is 55 minutes long.  And so does the NASA page.  And so does the article in National Geographic.  And so does the article in Ocean Conservancy.  And then there are conference papers and contemporary press coverage such as the Arizona Daily Star.  This animal experiment was quite ground-breaking and was extensively covered in a variety of media.  It's an easy pass of GNG and so my !vote stands per policies including WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The interview is not sufficient. Links above?? Saying that editing can improve the page without editing/imrpoving it... CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient coverage. Also that Automatic Andrew Keep Bot is looking more and more feasible as time goes on. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, have to backtrack here - there apparently exists good material to merge some specifics to Loggerhead_sea_turtle, as suggested below. The NASA dataset, specifically, and the PBS instalment might be mentioned (neither of which I found). (I'm sticking with the AndrewBot suggestion, because of course that !vote was made "on principle" before making any searches either...) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah well, so I was not the only one thinking of some kind of bot.... CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge This led to a significant scientific breakthrough. There is an article for Magnetoreception already, so just merge there.   D r e a m Focus  00:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect to Loggerhead_sea_turtle where content is already included (not that this is a likely search term). The individual animal is not notable, rather what was learned about the species is, and its own article is not warranted. GPS wildlife tracking could certainly use improvements too. Reywas92Talk 01:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG - I was able to find and add a variety of coverage, including from CNN (1999), Kirkus Reviews (2020) (a book about this turtle), National Geographic (2011) (this turtle was a starting point for additional research), Underwater Times (2006) (this turtle continued to be celebrated ten years after their tracked journey), Deep Sea News (2009) ("one of the most famous sea turtles in the world") and DePauw University (2007) (indicating additional secondary sources WP:NEXIST). Beccaynr (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Changed my vote to keep based on sources found. The article is short, but still a valid article, with information that would not fit in another article.   D r e a m Focus  02:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously meets WP:GNG. Nomination without WP:BEFORE. Sun Creator(talk) 12:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously meets WP:GNG. Not the article it was when nominated for deletion.  Based on sourcing NOW, WP:HEY.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.